Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

God a Trinity.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Yes. Modalism is the doctrine of one deity manifested in three separate aspects. Conversely, Orthodox Theology states that the godhead consists of three separate persons and that these three persons are truly distinct one from another.
    exactly. And my example was not describing the trinity, it was giving you an analogy of the hypostatic union. How Jesus could have two natures. You conflated my analogy to being an analogy about the trinity and got all confused because i was using a single person in my example with different "natures" represented by roles in life.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      exactly. And my example was not describing the trinity, it was giving you an analogy of the hypostatic union. How Jesus could have two natures. You conflated my analogy to being an analogy about the trinity and got all confused because i was using a single person in my example with different "natures" represented by roles in life.
      Actually, I think it was you who conflated the two but whatever. A similar argument applies to both the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union in that in the union of the latter God the Son and Jesus the man are truly distinct one from another, just as the persons of the Trinity are truly distinct one from another. The Council of Chalcedon (in 451), declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own distinct properties, are united in one subsistence and one person.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        Yes. Modalism is the doctrine of one deity manifested in three separate aspects. Conversely, Orthodox Theology states that the godhead consists of three separate persons and that these three persons are truly distinct one from another.
        To be precise, tritheism says, "three separate persons." The Trinity is three distinct persons, they are not separate in being the One God.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          To be precise, tritheism says, "three separate persons." The Trinity is three distinct persons, they are not separate in being the One God.
          True!
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            These are tortuous attempts to explain the doctrine of the Trinity and not convincing, e.g. when did God the father interpenetrate “the human” and how does this equate to orthodox teaching that God the Son is eternal and co-equal to the other two eternal persons of the Trinity.
            In the orthodox tradition, the Logos is eternal, but he become incarnate, i.e. became united with a human nature in 3 BC (or so). It is the Logos that is eternal, not the human nature. However the Logos is still in eternity the obedient Son, so some aspects of the incarnate Christ are reflected in the logos in eternity. Not actual human nature, though, since that wasn't adopted until 3 BC.

            Is this what the NT authors actually meant by calling Christ preexistent? John 1 comes closest. The problem is that Jewish tradition speaks of divine attributes as if they were entities, so it's hard to know just how literally to take the NT language. I think it's fair to say, however, that although Jesus wasn't born until 3 BC, the fact that he shows us God tells us something about God. The Muslim God wouldn't die for us, even in incarnate form. At the very least preexistence says that God was, in some sense, always "incarnatable." There was something about him that made it appropriate for him to appear through a human and die. Personally I find three hypostases with one ousia a less than obvious way to describe this, but I do think Jesus as Word made flesh, and the various ideas about preexistence, implies a more complex concept of God than a pure transcendent idea like the Muslim one. Hence I normally identify myself as a Trinitarian, although I take the traditional philosophical language as one attempt to explain the implications of the incarnation on the nature of God, and don't see it as the ideal or final explanation.

            [I speak of "human nature" and "the human" rather than simply calling Jesus a man because classical Christology rejects the idea that Jesus is a human person. While I understand the things that lead to this, I think it's a problem with classical Christology that one can't refer to Jesus as a man.]
            Last edited by hedrick; 05-13-2017, 08:15 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by hedrick View Post
              In the orthodox tradition, the Logos is eternal, but he become incarnate, i.e. became united with a human nature in 3 BC (or so). It is the Logos that is eternal, not the human nature. However the Logos is still in eternity the obedient Son, so some aspects of the incarnate Christ are reflected in the logos in eternity. Not actual human nature, though, since that wasn't adopted until 3 BC.

              Is this what the NT authors actually meant by calling Christ preexistent? John 1 comes closest. The problem is that Jewish tradition speaks of divine attributes as if they were entities, so it's hard to know just how literally to take the NT language. I think it's fair to say, however, that although Jesus wasn't born until 3 BC, the fact that he shows us God tells us something about God. The Muslim God wouldn't die for us, even in incarnate form. At the very least preexistence says that God was, in some sense, always "incarnatable." There was something about him that made it appropriate for him to appear through a human and die. Personally I find three hypostases with one ousia a less than obvious way to describe this, but I do think Jesus as Word made flesh, and the various ideas about preexistence, implies a more complex concept of God than a pure transcendent idea like the Muslim one. Hence I normally identify myself as a Trinitarian, although I take the traditional philosophical language as one attempt to explain the implications of the incarnation on the nature of God, and don't see it as the ideal or final explanation.

              [I speak of "human nature" and "the human" rather than simply calling Jesus a man because classical Christology rejects the idea that Jesus is a human person. While I understand the things that lead to this, I think it's a problem with classical Christology that one can't refer to Jesus as a man.]
              Interesting! Thank you.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                <snip>
                [I speak of "human nature" and "the human" rather than simply calling Jesus a man because classical Christology rejects the idea that Jesus is a human person. While I understand the things that lead to this, I think it's a problem with classical Christology that one can't refer to Jesus as a man.]
                I believe you are mistaken on that.
                1 Timothy 2:5,
                . . . For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; . . .
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                  [I speak of "human nature" and "the human" rather than simply calling Jesus a man because classical Christology rejects the idea that Jesus is a human person. While I understand the things that lead to this, I think it's a problem with classical Christology that one can't refer to Jesus as a man.]
                  I don't know where you've read up on classical Christology, but this is the first time I've ever seen someone claim that classical (orthodox) Christology rejects the idea that Jesus is a human person, or that He can't be referred to as a man.

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                  160 responses
                  507 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post JimL
                  by JimL
                   
                  Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                  88 responses
                  354 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                  21 responses
                  133 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Working...
                  X